Society and Ploitics-globalization

8/6/2019 Society and Ploitics-globalization

1/9

OLAYEMI EBUNOLUWA DAMILOLA

SOCIETY AND POLITICS:GLOBALISATION

1

Globalisation is the system of interaction among the countries of the world in order to

develop the global economy. Globalisation refers to the integration of economics and societies

all over the world. It involves technological, economic, political and cultural exchanges made

possible largely by advances in communication, transportation and infrastructure. (HubPages

[online]: 2011) The fact that we all gradually live in a unified world, so that individuals, groups

and nations become ever more dependent; is referred to as globalisation. (Giddens. A.: 2009)

Globalisation is a growing phenomenon whose impacts are widely felt and cannot be

undermined, as a result of the evident impact of globalisation, the extent to which its power

undermines the internal governments has for a very long time been a contentious issue, as a

result of this disagreement a number of scholars came together to form the globalisation

debate to express their own different opinions on the extent to which they think globalisation

affects the powers of internal governments.

In this debate there are three schools of thought, the hyperglobalisers- who are of the stand

that the impact of globalisation is borderless and unprecedented, and undermines the powers

of internal governments, the sceptics- they are of the strong opinion that the influence of

globalisation is determined by internal markets and governments, and lastly, the

transformationalists- they take a stand in between the other two schools. According to

Giddens. A. (2009) the transformationalists see this phenomenon as the central force behind a

broad spectrum of changes that are currently shaping the modern societies, but in the midst of

this transformation, some things remain unchanged, like the sovereign powers of internal

governments. For the purpose of this essay only the hyperglobalisers and sceptics schools

arguments would be considered.

The hyperglobalisers view globalization as a process that is cuts across national borders,

leading to a new global order, swept along very strong flows of inter-border trade and

production, which has walled up the political authority of internal government. In the light of

the above assertion they believe that the impact of globalisation over rides the sovereignty of

different countries. In essence, this school puts forward the argument that globalisation cannot

be controlled by national government. Kenichi Ohmae, a hyperglobalists, sees that the end of


2/9



2

this growing phenomenon would be a world without borders, where the powers of market

forces will surpass that of national governments; he says that global capitalism will be the world

order. In addition, he says that globalisation also promotes world governance. The

truthfulness of this assertion is seen in the growing power the United Nations has in making

decisions that are not refutable by state governments. (Giddens. A.: 2009.) According to

Goldstein. J. et al (2010) the United Nations is the closest institution to a world government

that has ever existed. The General Assembly which is an organ of the United Nations has passed

some decisions that states gave no choice but to obey, the existence of such an organ and its

ability to undermine state sovereignty, in that states do not have a say on decrees they make

does not only prove Ohmae assertion of world governance, but also the fact that the impact of

globalisation surpasses the control of internal governments.

Aside the United Nations the impact of the European Union on countries in Europe is another

point to buttress the point that globalisation leads to world governance and undermines the

power of internal governments. In Europe, the European Union has the power to make decrees

that the independent states do not have any power to refute; they have no choice but to obey

such decrees. One of such is the common currency policy implemented since February 2009,

and the European Union has with its powers gotten most European countries to change to the

use of the common currency, the Euro(). The union also put forward a general standardisation

of goods and services in Europe, where specifications of quality standards are set. Both the

United Nations and the European Union impose sanctions on states that are compulsorily

obeyed.

As globalisation is also a technological phenomenon, it further declines the power of internal

government. The power of technology has surpassed the control of internal government, as

state government cannot, no matter how they try, control the flow of information in and out of

their country. The growing capability of the internet is an off spring of globalisation, and this

growing capability is the reason why top state secrets can be accessed on the internet and

terrorists attacks can be planned miles away by terrorist networks located all over the world,

and internal governments will still remain clueless. The possibility of this kind of operation


3/9



3

within states without the consent of the internal government, and the possibility, also, of

information to go in and out of a state, even top government secrets, comes to prove that the

impact of globalisation side lines the powers of internal governments.

Technology as paved way for the creation of internet banking whose connectivity is

unchallengeable by internal governments; this internet banking system has even allowed

money to be wired in and out of countries without the knowledge of internal governments.

A global marketplace has brought growth and prosperity to countries. Traditional states have

become superseded as economic units as a result of this economic process. Authority of

internal governments has been countermanded by the presence of supranational institutions

like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Economic Community of West African States(ECOWAS) and transnational actors like MNCs and NGOs as well. The prices of some goods are

internationally fixed, undermining internal governments; the value of a nations currency can be

internationally determined. The presence of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries

(OPEC) is another proof. OPEC determines internationally the price of crude oil without the

consent of internal governments.

The hyperglobalisers believe that the regional and geographical distinction such as the North-

South gap are closing up and making way for a global economy.

Hyperglobalisers also believe that cultural integration has surpassed the control of any

internal government. They assert that the world is assuming a homogenous culture and

countries are adapting other countries cultures and fast loosing theirs faster than internal

governments can control. The western culture is spreading so fast, its affecting the way of life,

dressing, communicating, eating, and even the meals eaten around the world at a rate that in

no time the whole world would soon have completely inculcated the western culture leaving atthe only existing culture.

Even globalisation as a social phenomenon in respect to sports has in some challenged the

power of state governments. International sports organisations like the Olympics,

Commonwealth (Commonwealth Games) and FIFA (World Cup) have in times past placed some


4/9



4

sanctions on states that could not be challenged by internal governments, and their guiding

rules have to be obeyed by all participating states strictly.

Hyperglobalisers believe that the driving force of globalisation centres on laissez faire

capitalism and technology. Taken together these shifts signal to the hyperglobalisers the

dawning of a global age in which national governments decline in importance and influence

(Giddens. A.: 2009)

In this light, the hyperglobalisers firmly take their stand on the opinion that the powers of

globalisation are uncontrollable by state governments and that the extent to which

globalisation influences a state is far beyond the control of national government. The

hyperglobalisers say that the powers of globalisation cut across borders indiscriminately. Thatis, globalisation is unprecedented and borderless.

The sceptics on the other hand, are of the opinion that the driving force behind globalisation

is the internal government and the market, they argue that the impact of globalisation is not

unprecedented or borderless. In essence, they argue that globalisation is controllable by

national government. The hyperglobalisers assumptions of globalisation have been attacked by

sceptically oriented theoreticians who see globalisation not as an epochal transformation of

world affairs rather a myth that conceals the reality of an international economy increasingly

segmented into three major regional blocs in which national governments remain very

powerful (Doiserbnia [online]: n.d)

In a bid to counter the core of the hyperglobalists argument, careful experimental examining of

the hyperglobalisers thesis is carried out by the sceptics.

Two renowned sceptics, Thompson and Hirst, put forward their argument using the Weber

Ian mode of analysis; from constructing two ideal types. They start by drawing a clear line

between international economy and global economy. They say that whilst an international

economy is one where there exist exchanges between relatively distinct national economies, a

global economy is a perfectly integrated world economy in which the law of one price in

predominant. They conclude that if the hyperglobalisers thesis of the existence of a global


5/9



5

economy that undermines the power of internal government is true then the world would be

experiencing a totally new economic structure and not just speculative modifications toward a

growing international trade and investments. They finally say that if the hyperglobalisers

postulation concerning economic globalisation is accepted, then the other assertions

concerning global culture and global policy will be disproved. (Doiserbnia [online]: n.d)

These sceptics claim that world economies are not more integrated now than they were before

the World War I, when the hegemonic power of Britain provided a commons set of

expectations and institutions. They also doubt that the regional blocs are gapping up as a result

of the emergence of a global economy; rather they believe that globalisation has come to

widen this gap. The hyperglobalisers postulation of world civilisation is refuted by the

fragmenting of larger units into smaller ones along lines of language, religion, and other such

cultural factors. (Goldstein. J. et al: 2010)

Simply put, if it has been extensively established that, in all honesty, there is no such thing as a

global economy in practice, how then can one say that the powers of internal governments are

been undermined by an inexistent global economy.

The truthfulness of the sceptic assertion that globalisation is controllable by national

government is seen in the prerogative power of states to come up with policies governing their

territory. In as much as the hyperglobalists postulation that international organisations have

binding powers to make irrefutable decrees on states that must be obeyed, the sceptics make it

clear that the states have the prerogative to decide whether or not to join this organisations.

And can even to a large extent decide whether or not to comply with some of their policies, the

United Kingdom for example has even up till date refused to obey the European Union on its

common currency policy and still spends its own Pounds sterling (). The United States also

undermined the power of the United Nations general assembly when they invaded Iraq in 2003,

after the United Nations ordered it not to.

The United Nations in as much as it is the closest to a global government is not one. The

members of the United Nation are independent nations who have not given the United Nation


6/9



6

the go ahead to infringe on their sovereignty; it is not empowered to enforce decrees within

state borders without the authorisation of internal governments. In essence, the powers of the

United Nations in a state are determined by the state government. A fresh instance to buttress

this point is the current crises in Libya, in as much as the United Nations general assembly as

decided to assist Libya and remove Ghadafi, they cannot because they have not been invited by

the government of Libya. (Goldstein. J. et al: 2010)

Looking beyond this, one cannot deny the fact that the United Nations has strengthen its

member states politically, both developed and developing now have a voice through the forum

of the United Nations. Therefore, the fact that globalisation has given states more voice and

power, one cannot say that the powers of globalisation is the name of the international

organisations like the United Nations, are challenging national government, it is in fact largely

beneficial to national governments.

States also have prerogative to make economic policies such as tariffs, excise duty and import

duty, which go a long way in determining the extent to which international corporations can

function within their borders. These economic policies can even deter this multinational

corporations from coming into their territory if the internal governments so please. High tariffs

discourage foreign investors from coming into a country and excise duties control the rate of

international trade.

Sceptics argue that national states (especially powerful ones) are their main agents and

architects. The market, goes the argument, cannot or will never be able to replace the

functions of national governments because without their controlling, protecting and managing

role there are no prerequisites for successful integration. The main conclusion related to the

previous point is that contemporary trends of internationalization have not changed the basic

postulates of managing the international economy. (Doiserbnia [online]: n.d)

The truthfulness of sceptic assertion can also be seen in the issuance of license to

multinational companies operating within a nation. Every internal government reserve the

right to issue licence to any company operating within the nation. The government also


7/9



7

reserves the right to invoke the licence. This goes to show the extent to which the internal

government has strong influence and power on the extent to which globalisation affects its

territories.

The sceptics believe that the power of the national governments are reinforced and

enhanced by globalisation, that is, the powers of the internal government are further

empowered and reformed by globalisation. They emphasise that the dominant feature of

globalisation is world less interdependence. According to Thompson, the world is divided into

regionalised blocs, that is, regional global bodies whose influence on member nations are more

than global bodies. The African Union and European Union determine the affairs of Africa and

Europe respectively.

With the different arguments, the sceptics dare to say that the powers or influence of

globalisation are binding and controlled by national government, and that national

governments have the autonomous power to control the extent to which the impact of

globalisation is felt within their borders. That is, globalisation is not unprecedented and

borderless.

In summary, the table below shows the views of the hyperglobalisers and sceptics.

HYPERGLOBALISERS SCEPTICS

I. Conceptualisation A new era Nothing new;ideology and myth

II. Main Causes Laissez fairecapitalism and

technology

Project of the West

III. Main consequencesa) economic New global economy Internalisation of

economy

b) political The end of state;global government

States are more

powerful than ever


8/9



8

c) cultural Homogenization FragmentationIV. Future prediction The end of history,

global civilisation

Clash of civilisations

In conclusion, the stand of the transformationalists will reflect. The influence of

globalisation is not negligible but the authority of internal government cannot be denied. It is

put forward that in as much as globalisation has transformed the world, it has also transformed

the powers of national governments. The transformative power of globalisation is dominant in

the political domain and this transformation is based on the mixture of global culture and

internal culture.


9/9



9

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Giddens. A. (2009) Sociology (6th Edition) Italy: Polity Press

Goldstein. J. et al (2011) International Relations (9th

Edition) USA: Pearson

WEBSITES

Doiserbnia (n.d) [online] Sceptics Argument Available at:

http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1452-595X/2006/1452-595X0602179T.pdfAccessed on 6th March

HubPages (2011) [online] Definition of Globalisation Available at: http://hubpages.com/hub/Definition-

of-Globalization Accessed on 5th March

Society and Ploitics-globalization

Documents

Transcript of Society and Ploitics-globalization